Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging seizure of unaccounted mentha oil and caustic soda. The court held that under GST Act, section 35 mandates proper accounting of goods, and when discrepancies are found, sections 73/74 shall apply for tax determination. Section 130 cannot be invoked for proceedings related to excess stock discovered during survey. Precedents from previous judgments, including the court's own ruling in M/s Vijay Trading Company and subsequent SC orders, consistently affirmed that section 130 is inapplicable in such scenarios. The court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the petition, upholding the original seizure and penalty orders.
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging seizure of unaccounted mentha oil and caustic soda. The court held that under GST Act, section 35 mandates proper accounting of goods, and when discrepancies are found, sections 73/74 shall apply for tax determination. Section 130 cannot be invoked for proceedings related to excess stock discovered during survey. Precedents from previous judgments, including the court's own ruling in M/s Vijay Trading Company and subsequent SC orders, consistently affirmed that section 130 is inapplicable in such scenarios. The court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the petition, upholding the original seizure and penalty orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.